Unsurpassed is the Lord’s way of teaching the Dhamma concerning one’s proper moral conduct. One should be honest and faithful, without deception, chatter, hinting or belittling, not always ready to add gain to gain, but with the sense-doors guarded, moderate in food, a promoter of peace, observant, active and strenuous in effort, a meditator, mindful, with proper conversation, steady-going, resolute and sensible, not hankering after sense pleasures, but mindful and prudent. This is the unsurpassed teaching concerning a person’s proper ethical conduct. - Sampasādanīya, Dīgha Nikāya 28

"The Bodhisatta, the foremost jewel, unequaled, has been born for welfare & ease in the human world, in a town in the Sakyan countryside, Lumbini.

Without more commentary from you it is difficult to ascertain, what you want to tell us with your post:

- that the Ashokan pillar in Lumbini is a fake?
- the the Buddha was born in a different place than the Suttas tell us?
- maybe we are not even talking about the current, Theravadan Buddha, but any one of the other historical Buddhas, or even a future one?
- that people in the past had a very wrong idea what was written really in the Suttas, or the histoprical importance of Sri Lanka for Theravada?

Pls clarify.

The teaching is a lake with shores of ethics, unclouded, praised by the fine to the good.
There the knowledgeable go to bathe, and cross to the far shore without getting wet.
[SN 7.21]

My favoured response is that it hardly matters, but that attempts to show that his birthplace was in Sri Lanka seem based on crude nationalist boosterism rather than scholarship. The main difficulty with that approach is that it depends upon a systematic multi-national attempt at historical revisionism which would serve no discernible purpose, and which would itself be the subject of modern historiographical interest.

In my country there are probably groups of people concerned to show that the Buddha was female, gay, transsexual, or an African refugee, but then again every country gets the revisionists it deserves.

My favoured response is that it hardly matters, but that attempts to show that his birthplace was in Sri Lanka seem based on crude nationalist boosterism rather than scholarship. The main difficulty with that approach is that it depends upon a systematic multi-national attempt at historical revisionism which would serve no discernible purpose, and which would itself be the subject of modern historiographical interest.

In my country there are probably groups of people concerned to show that the Buddha was female, gay, transsexual, or an African refugee, but then again every country gets the revisionists it deserves.

Certain said to be monks and an organised set of people tried to prove that lord Budda was born in sri lanka. They
even had geographical evidence made up and created to prove their point. Yet the truth that lord budda was born in India had to be admitted in front of confrontation by highly educated intellectual monks who intervened in this matter.